Israel-Palestine: The Solution

[DanishDynamite]

Most threads on this issue seem to be heavily into which part in the conflict is most to blame. Interesting, I suppose, but not very solution oriented.

I once (long ago) had a long debate with Cleo among others regarding what the main obstacles to a solution were. If I recal corectly, it was narrowed down to who gets title to Jerusalem and the Right-og-Return problem.

I was wondering if the posters who are wont to post on this subject have gone beyond the "who is most to blame" stage and have actually considered how this conflict might realisticly be solved.

So, which realistic scenarios have you come up with?

 

[Hutch]

Ah, someone else who can see that there must be an end-game to all this at sometime in the future. I was beginning to think the rival camps here were so busy looking up links to pound each other with that nothing else would ever be discussed on this part of the board again.

I think the non-government Israeli/Palestinian group that published their work in 2003 is on the right track. At least they have made the radicals on both sides mad enough to denounce them (Arafat approves, but I take that as political posturing on his part, not as a serious interest, IMHO).

Basically, if I recall (I do have to do some work this afternoon and don't have time to find a link), the border would be around the 1948 lines, with some adjustments for a few of the long-term settlements, Jersusalam would be shared and the capital for both Israel and Palestine, the Holy sites would be under some international jursidiction (Japanese Shinto administrators and Hindu guards?), and the right of return would be very limited (perhaps some compensation). Also the Arab states would have to extend formal recognition to Israel, IIRC.

In the end (years? decades?) this is probably what will happen. but that doesn't mean a lot of other options won't be tried in the meantime. Religion + Politics do not necessarily equal intelligence.

OK DD, now we see if the masses swoop down upon us...

 

[RCNelson]

Both sides in the Israel-Palestine conflict have a world view in which their own side is preferred by God - in which their own side is given special privileges to live there in preference over the other side. As long as they hold this world view, there is no solution.

They will just keep on killing each other until they either stop believing in God or believe only on a God that loves both sides equally without preference for either side.

This is a long winded way of saying: There is no solution and they will just keep on killing each other.

 

[Grammatron]

I think step one is an actual country called Palestine that takes controls, secures and removes the anarchy. Step two is Jerusalem sharing and the right of return and step three is borders. I believe that is the order it has to happen in or odds of a peaceful solution are very low.

Another solution my friend proposed is not very realistic but it sounds nice toward the end.

Israel invades the remaining Palestinian territory, cleans out the terrorist groups and then sets up the government to include everyone who lives on those lands so everyone is equal.

 

[zenith-nadir]

1) Remove Arafat and replace him with someone who is honest, able to fulfill treaty obligations and able to deal with the Hamas, PLFP, Islamic Jihad, Tanzim, Fatah and Al Aksa Martyrs Brigade terrorists.

2) Israel will then be forced to pull back to the 1967 greenline.

3) As it stands Arabs, Jews and Christians enjoy free access to all holy places in Jerusalem. Leave Jerusalem under Israeli control, it's worked for decades. Don't fix something if it isn't broken.

4) Most of the "right of return" refugees who left in 1948 are five decades older and would fair poorly moving back into an alien culture and country. Therefore perhaps monetary compensation would be a better option.

5) If you were born outside of 1948 Palestine you should become a citizen of the country you were born in. Like everywhere else on earth. Otherwise where do you suggest putting 4 million Islamic palestinian descendants inside jewish Israel?

 

[DanishDynamite]

Hutch:

Ah, someone else who can see that there must be an end-game to all this at sometime in the future. I was beginning to think the rival camps here were so busy looking up links to pound each other with that nothing else would ever be discussed on this part of the board again.

Welcome to JREF Politics.

I think the non-government Israeli/Palestinian group that published their work in 2003 is on the right track. At least they have made the radicals on both sides mad enough to denounce them (Arafat approves, but I take that as political posturing on his part, not as a serious interest, IMHO).

Would you have a link to this group's program?

Basically, if I recall (I do have to do some work this afternoon and don't have time to find a link), the border would be around the 1948 lines, with some adjustments for a few of the long-term settlements, Jersusalam would be shared and the capital for both Israel and Palestine, the Holy sites would be under some international jursidiction (Japanese Shinto administrators and Hindu guards?), and the right of return would be very limited (perhaps some compensation). Also the Arab states would have to extend formal recognition to Israel, IIRC.

Sounds reasonable so far. The problem is how this could be implemented.

In the end (years? decades?) this is probably what will happen. but that doesn't mean a lot of other options won't be tried in the meantime. Religion + Politics do not necessarily equal intelligence.

There is no doubt that this situation will be solved at some point. Why not as soon as possible, is my question.

OK DD, now we see if the masses swoop down upon us...

Let them swoop to their heart's delight. If they have no viable solution, they can stick their squabblings on "who started" in a certain dark place.

 

[Grammatron]

3) As it stands Arabs, Jews and Christians enjoy free access to all holy places in Jerusalem. Leave Jerusalem under Israeli control, it's worked for decades. Don't fix something if it isn't broken.

Yes, but Jerusalem seems to be a very heated issue, therefore I think there must be some compromise on the matter if peaceful solution is to be reached.

 

[DanishDynamite]

RCNelson:

Both sides in the Israel-Palestine conflict have a world view in which their own side is preferred by God - in which their own side is given special privileges to live there in preference over the other side. As long as they hold this world view, there is no solution.

They will just keep on killing each other until they either stop believing in God or believe only on a God that loves both sides equally without preference for either side.

This is a defeatist attitude. Assume for the moment that the majority on both sides don't actually wish to live in a perputual state of war.

This is a long winded way of saying: There is no solution and they will just keep on killing each other.

Of course their can be a solution. If enough pressure is brought to bare, it is of course possible. The question is what is a possible?

 

[DanishDynamite]

Grammatron:

I think step one is an actual country called Palestine that takes controls, secures and removes the anarchy.

Hold on. How can the first step be a country called Palestine? That would seem to be the goal?

Step two is Jerusalem sharing and the right of return and step three is borders. I believe that is the order it has to happen in or odds of a peaceful solution are very low.

I don't quite understand your proposal. How can step 3 = borders if step 1 = country of Palestine?
]

 

[Grammatron]

Grammatron:Hold on. How can the first step be a country called Palestine? That would seem to be the goal?
I don't quite understand your proposal. How can step 3 = borders if step 1 = country of Palestine?

Well as it stands right now there are Palestinian territories which are more or less in Anarchy. If those territories were to become a country then Israel can negotiate with a country which handled its own security and cleaned out the terrorist problem for land concessions and things like that. I just don't see how any real negotiations can happen until there is a legitimate form of government, which can run Palestine.

 

[DanishDynamite]

zenith-nadir:

1) Remove Arafat and replace him with someone who is honest, able to fulfill treaty obligations and able to deal with the Hamas, PLFP, Islamic Jihad, Tanzim, Fatah and Al Aksa Martyrs Brigade terrorists.

How?

2) Israel will then be forced to pull back to the 1967 greenline.

Why?

3) As it stands Arabs, Jews and Christians enjoy free access to all holy places in Jerusalem. Leave Jerusalem under Israeli control, it's worked for decades. Don't fix something if it isn't broken.

What is wrong with sharing guardianship? Will the Palestinians accept the relinquishing of Jerusalem? It was my understanding that this was one of the two main obstacles.

4) Most of the "right of return" refugees who left in 1948 are five decades older and would fair poorly moving back into an alien culture and country. Therefore perhaps monetary compensation would be a better option.

Excellent suggestion.

5) If you were born outside of 1948 Palestine you should become a citizen of the country you were born in. Like everywhere else on earth. Otherwise where do you suggest putting 4 million Islamic palestinian descendants inside jewish Israel?

Sounds very reasonable.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Grammatron:

Well as it stands right now there are Palestinian territories which are more or less in Anarchy. If those territories were to become a country then Israel can negotiate with a country which handled its own security and cleaned out the terrorist problem for land concessions and things like that. I just don't see how any real negotiations can happen until there is a legitimate form of government, which can run Palestine.

I've got a counter proposal. Why not demand that the Palestinians elect a Negotiator who will then have a mandate to negotiate for the Palestinians? Suppose the world community finally decided that this conflict was too bothersome to let continue and made such a demand? It seems to me that a lot of people (myself included) have a problem with Arafat. Force a monitored election, with adequate resources and access to television for every contender, in order to get a Negotiator with the People's mandate.

 

[Hutch]

Would you have a link to this group's program?
.

Just found one, Double-D.

www.fmed.org/documents/Geneva_Accord.html

Most of what I wrote above seems to be accurate, but the actual document is a bit long-winded and full of acronyms--as I read more and more I marvel again at things like the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Gettysburg Address--how relatively simple language can convey great thoughts...ok, I'm officially off my soapbox.

FYI, I also contributed to your locations thread at the Community site--we are a far-flung bunch on this board, aren't we?

 

[Grammatron]

Grammatron:I've got a counter proposal. Why not demand that the Palestinians elect a Negotiator who will then have a mandate to negotiate for the Palestinians? Suppose the world community finally decided that this conflict was too bothersome to let continue and made such a demand? It seems to me that a lot of people (myself included) have a problem with Arafat. Force a monitored election, with adequate resources and access to television for every contender, in order to get a Negotiator with the People's mandate.

Well that sounds good but if the "Negotiator" -- why do I think of this being pronounced in Arnold's voice? -- has no control over the country I'm just afraid that any promises he makes would end up being empty.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

RCNelson:This is a defeatist attitude. Assume for the moment that the majority on both sides don't actually wish to live in a perputual state of war.

It maybe defeatist, but I think RCNelson is right. I don't see any reason to believe that the problem will ever be solved short of one side suceeding in wiping out the other. I don't think they want to live in a perpetual state of war but both sides have become so intransigent that they consider giving an inch in concessions to the other side as total abject surrender. So they are going to keep fighting until one or the other side ceases to exist.

 

[Hutch]

Grammatron:I've got a counter proposal. Why not demand that the Palestinians elect a Negotiator who will then have a mandate to negotiate for the Palestinians? Suppose the world community finally decided that this conflict was too bothersome to let continue and made such a demand? It seems to me that a lot of people (myself included) have a problem with Arafat. Force a monitored election, with adequate resources and access to television for every contender, in order to get a Negotiator with the People's mandate.

Danish Dyno, I can concur with you, Grammatron, and zenith-nadir (and even more than a few Arabs) that it would be much easier if big-nose Yasser would go gently (or even go kicking and screaming) into that good night. Problem is three-fold. One, he was elected, if I recall right. Two, despite everything, he is still seen by the majority of Palestinians as their legitimate spokesman (or at least the one they can all mostly agree upon--like any politician, Arafat shows whatever face he needs to keep the majority on his side). Three, if he is eliminated by any other than the Palestinians themselves, then his successor will have no public support at all. So like the skunk at the tea party, I must needs fear that we will have to hold our nose and deal with him.

A note on the right to return. The Geneva Agreement goes along with much of zenith-nadir's wishes, limiting the number of returnees and offering compensation. Still, there will be problems--if the jewish people could dream of a homeland after leaving it 1900 years before, would the Palestinians forget their homes after only 50 years? (Oh boy, am I going to catch it!!)

 

[DanishDynamite]

Hutch:

Just found one, Double-D.

www.fmed.org/documents/Geneva_Accord.html

Sorry, Hutch, but that link just leads to a blank page.

Most of what I wrote above seems to be accurate, but the actual document is a bit long-winded and full of acronyms--as I read more and more I marvel again at things like the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Gettysburg Address--how relatively simple language can convey great thoughts...ok, I'm officially off my soapbox.

No, from what I have read on this forum of those documents they are indeed very precise and eloquent. (Only Amendment 2 is a bit off )

FYI, I also contributed to your locations thread at the Community site--we are a far-flung bunch on this board, aren't we?

Just checked it out. Thanks, and yes quite a number of JREF'ers have seen the world. I could go on regarding easy access to transport, new forms of transport, etc, etc, but then I would be derailing.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Grammatron:

Well that sounds good but if the "Negotiator" -- why do I think of this being pronounced in Arnold's voice? -- has no control over the country I'm just afraid that any promises he makes would end up being empty.

But he would implicitly and also explicitly have the power to negotiate. One could imagine that the finished result might need to be approved by a general referendum, in which case no one could doubt its legitimacy.

(Just throwing out ideas here)

 

[Nikk]

OK a few not too closely linked observations and proposals:-



1.) Medium to Long Term Objective.............If europe could move from the massive destruction of WWII to the creation of the European Community in just 12 years (45 to 57) then there should be the potential for jews and arabs to set aside internecine warfare. Israel and its neighbours should see their long term future as part of a near/middle eastern community with free movement of people, capital, land purchase etc, etc. This means in the long term for Israel giving up the idea of a jewish state. All members of such a community would of course retain a substantial measure of independence as in the current EU.

2.) Short Term Objective ..........Some form of cantonal structure for Israel/Palestine. Palestine will be economically dependent on Israel so statehood is a diversion from the greater objective of a union of states.

a)Give every damn jew and palestinian a get out of jail free card. That is a multi purpose laisser passer to the civilised world, i.e. Europe, North America and Australasia. That way no one feels the desperation that comes from being locked in what is currently a human zoo. The Palestinians should in addition get the option of citizenship in the arab world. Needless to say anyone taking up the offer can come and go as they please.

b)Israel's borders to be set at 1967 boundaries, 10 year moratorium on removal of settlers in hope they will provide employment for Palestinians and it ceases to matter.

c) Limited right of return to Israel proper say 50,000 to 100,000 people max.

d) No special citizenship rights in Israel for jews outside the country unless matched by equal rights for refugees.

e) Jerusalem an international city under UN control ( or religious theme park run by Disney )

f) A UN force in the currently occupied territories to prevent settler/palestinian conflict for as long as necesary. It would probably have to come from elite US/European units.

g) Get young palestinians males into excellent secondary and tertiary education, ideally outside the region.


If some such proposal could be made by the EU and the US it might just jump start the process. Oh and to show even handedness lets send in the SAS and the US equivalent to assassinate Sharon and Arafat.

I will now resume my normal ill tempered bickering.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Nyarlathotep:

It maybe defeatist, but I think RCNelson is right. I don't see any reason to believe that the problem will ever be solved short of one side suceeding in wiping out the other. I don't think they want to live in a perpetual state of war but both sides have become so intransigent that they consider giving an inch in concessions to the other side as total abject surrender. So they are going to keep fighting until one or the other side ceases to exist.

This is not a solution. Let alone a realistic solution.